It’s fun to compare BSD alternatives to GNU software and BSD documentation to GNU documentation. For example, OpenBSD refused to integrate GnuPG for package sig

It’s fun to compare BSD alternatives to GNU software and BSD documentation to GNU documentation. For example, OpenBSD refused to integrate GnuPG for package signing due to its complexity, instead developing its own signify(1): https://man.openbsd.org/signify.1 https://man.openbsd.org/signify.1 https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg24/gpg.1.html https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg24/gpg.1.ht... Oops, sorry, this is GNU software, so we need the real documentation from texinfo: https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/ https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/ GnuPG certainly has more features. Does that make it better software? For checking signatures (the only thing I’ve used GnuPG for in 15 years), I find the signify(1) documentation more readable and the signify(1) tool more usable. Or how about tar(1), everyone’s favorite punching bag due to its weird options? https://man.openbsd.org/tar.1 https://man.openbsd.org/tar.1 https://manpages.debian.org/bookworm/tar/tar.1.en.html https://manpages.debian.org/bookworm/tar/tar.1.en.html https://www.gnu.org/software/tar/manual/tar.html https://www.gnu.org/software/tar/manual/tar.html Yikes!